A. aurantiaca?

[Mark Pennell]

Not knocking the bts site but it would be fantastic if it could offer comprehensive listings of sp along with hundreds of correctly identified photographs like Rick west's to a degree

Sorry you feel that way Richard, but in my book that was knocking! All be it a quiet tap.

I have obviously not labelled the Theraphosidae gallery in big enough letters for you to find it . The captivity list has been our site for years (thanks to Mr Gallon) and over course of this year I have slowly been adding pictures to the names with most have at least 3 pictures with males and females and few have some ventral views. I have over 90 more pictures to add to this just waiting for me to find the time to post them all up.

Yes as you rightly say it’s a daunting job. Along with all the other stuff I am presently working on at the moment like the BTS E-store, so it’s on the back boiler for now but on the to do list. I will add this though our list does only deal with species that are present in the hobby. See as follows

The B.T.S Theraphosidae Gallery
All pictures copyright of the BTS 2004

It is highly unlikely that all the species on this list are correctly identified. The presence of a name in this gallery does not validate the identification of any gallery photographs. Click the link to view the images. Some pages have more than one picture. For a more up to date species in captivity list including the latest taxonomic changes see the BTS members site.

Its getting there Richard, slowly and yes it’s a far cry from the excellent gallery of Mr West... but its as accurate as you will find, within in the limits and boundaries of what is practical and available information.

Regards

Mark

[Ray Hale]

This is where we differ I love it if I have a pet I like to know as much about it as possible just could be my meticulous nature but I have always been the same. I have said this to paul towler many times "whats the point in owning and breeding a sp when you know nothing about its like saying you can swim and never going in the water!" ok some people just keep theraphosids as pets and dont want to go into the ins and outs of it all but I consider that disrespectful to the spider how can you correctly care for an an exotic animal and not know anything about it?and being a pet that many are scared of what do you say to people when they ask where it's from what sp is it etc etc. ok you dont have to go into taxa but I can only see that going into that side of the hobby is a natural progression and inevitable at some point.

I am afraid I would have to disagree with this Rich. Although I do not profess to be a taxonomist I do know a lot about tarantulas. There are those who speak many languages but are fluent in none. I consider it disrespectful to those hobbyists who know exactly how to keep their animal , exactly where it comes from and what species it is but do not have an interest in taxonomy. Taxonomy is not a natural progression. There are many pet keepers out there and not only in this field. Please do not denigrate these guys when they are the backbone of the hobby and without them we wouldnt be where we are. Our membership as built up over many years and is the result of the hard work of those Committee Members who have slogged around the circuit, lecturing, displaying and dispelling myths. I may not be a taxonomist but I am dedicated to my hobby.

[RichardDegville]

Hi Guys

First off Mark you have got me wrong mate I was not knocking at the site one bit and im gutted you feel that I have as that was not my intention in the least my post must read different to what I meant and I apologise whole heartedly if I have offended you in any way.

Ray

I am afraid I would have to disagree with this Rich. Although I do not profess to be a taxonomist I do know a lot about tarantulas.

I agree Ray but there's only so much one can know about theraphosids with out dipping in to taxonomy to some extent don't you agree look at sexing that's a key taxonomical tool e.g spermathecae?

There are those who speak many languages but are fluent in none.

True like the fraze jack of all trades master of non like many local builders in Birmingham lol. <<< this is not a knock at you Ray its just another quote in the same context I dont want any one reading in to text what I dident mean.

I consider it disrespectful to those hobbyists who know exactly how to keep their animal , exactly where it comes from and what species it is but do not have an interest in taxonomy.

I didn't intend to disrespect any one Ray its merely my opinion that's all every one to there own however it would be nice if more people within the hobby could contribute taxonomically we may get this hobby sorted out faster in a perfect world huh .

Taxonomy is not a natural progression..

I have to disagree mate in my opinion it is now you may not have to go in the jungle or even try and describe a nov. sp but knowing your tarantula inside out has to hold some interest? + the added bonus of contributing to the hobby that we all love so much in a taxonomical sense once you get over the initial addiction that is lol

There are many pet keepers out there and not only in this field. Please do not denigrate these guys when they are the backbone of the hobby and without them we wouldn't be where we are.

Like I said earlier mate that's was not my intention

Our membership as built up over many years and is the result of the hard work of those Committee Members who have slogged around the circuit, lecturing, displaying and dispelling myths.

I agree what would the hobby be like in the UK with out the BTS " in more of a bloody mess than it already is im willing to wage!" This is why im proud to be a member and contribute to the journal and have a huge link on my website!

I am dedicated to my hobby.

Very true Ray you are a very well liked and respected man and an asset to the hobby

Thanks for the debate I think we have all gone way off topic now we should have started a new thread lol!

[Ray Gabriel]

Hi Matjaz,

The specimen in the picture you posted looks more like a species we had in the hobby 8 years or so back sold as Avicularia sp Peru purple.

This sp i think is one of the many colour forms of A. urticans, the general grizzled hairs and all over "scrufffy" apearance of hair pattern, and the iridescent upper femora, typical of the A. urticans "group".

The link Martin Posted shows pics of what ian Wallace was selling as A. magdalena, which after it was discovered by Dr Schmidt was not an Avicularia sp, was called A. juruensis, (though from what i am told the type of A. juruensis was never examined to justify this identification only pictures sent for identification).

I THINK this is the species S. Bauer described as A. aurantiaca. (help please Martin) BUT at the same time as A. urticans (in its many guises) entered the hobby another species was imported with it which closely resembles Martins pics of A. aurantiaca. A few of us keeping Avics at the time (some of you who have been in the hobby long enough might remember this sp) started to call this sp A. walkenaeri, to keep it separate from the A. aurantiaca, unforunately this sp was also sold as A. aurantiaca, thus leading to the demise of both sp by the wrong males going to the wrong females or even worse hobbyists hybridising them.

I am not sure which sp Stefan identified as they both have the yellow bands. But the carapace hairs and abdominal hairs are different.

Important point here being that Ian Wallace imported his from Coloumbia or Ecuador (Mark Alison pers.com with Ian Wallace has told me but i cannot remember) and from what i have read Stefans A. aurantiaca came from Peru? same country as A. urticans.

So one of the species remains unidentifed.

The spiderlings of what I THINK is the real A. aurantiaca (Martins link) are very distinctive with bright yellow metatarsal bands at only 2nd moult.

If the specimen in your picture Matjaz was really A. aurantiaca then i feel the yellow bands would stick out like beacons.

A. bicegoi (or should i say the specimens i have had in the past 9 years back as A. bicegoi) have a similar hair covering on the carapace to the pics of A. aurantiaca in Martins link. But what the dealers are calling A. bicegoi nowadays i have not seen.

Photographs can be a help (mostly by a process of elimination, but one HAS to know what to LOOK for) when trying to identify a species, but by no means a valid taxonomical tool, especially when many people post pictures of "what they have bought as" (when the dealers dont have the foggiest idea of what they have they just use the name supplied on the importation documentation), or when amatures change the name of common species to obscure species just to sell thier stock or make it look like they have something new/good/rare whatever.

There are two well respected Arachnological taxonomists looking at the Avicularinae, but i feel it will be a long time untill thier revision has been completed. The good side of this is that they do have access to the type specimens (access of which is becomming harder even for acknowledged taxonomists) , so the end result will be well worth the wait.

Meantime with the exception of A. minatrix, versicolour, purpurea and pulchra, i would not accept the identification of any Avicularia sp as definite, no matter who tells you they know what it is.

Ray

[Matjaz]

Wow, I look at the thread a few days later and find this debate. Thank you all for it. And don't worry for me Richard, I absolutely understand this all, I'm a biology student.
So I guess this means, it will be hard for me to know what species my spider belongs to. The problem is, this spider is probably an immature male (and probably not far from maturity)...I'm just not sure, becouse the molt was so crumpled. So, if there are any committe members or other trustworthy BTS members that could potentially identify the spider if they got it...I would send it to them (not sell it!). If the spider (male?) could be identified, it would be a shame not to "use" him for breeding purposes and keep the captive bred spiders in the hobby.

Anyway, I'm gonna add a little bone to nibble on...a pic of the same spider, taken on the 6. of Oktober 2002:


Best wishes!
Matjaz

[Ray Hale]

Hi Matjaz,

Lively debate is all part of the hobby. As Ray G points out currently there are a number of Avic specialists. Contact Mark Allison (BTS Committee) he knows more about them than most..

Drop him an e-mail. If he cant help I am sure he will point you in the right direction.

Ray Hale BTS

[Ray Gabriel]

I agree with Ray H contacting Mark Alison would be a good idea.

Brendan, i think your A. aurantiaca is the one we used to call A. walkenaeri. If you look at the carapace and compare the carapace to the pics on Martins link, you will se that the "Real" A. aurantiaca has a carapace covered with very short cropped hairs, almost as if it had been dry brushed.

If you look at the hairs on the carapace of your specimen they are much longer and the covering more "fuller".

Ray

[Aviculariinae]

Its big its brown,i think it goes well in this topic.
Avicularia Sp.


Enjoy

[Bentrix]

Avic. sps

Theres always been So many avic.sp knocking about for as long as i remeber! its seems nobody can agree to whats going on with avics possibly due to cross breeding captive stock and so many different books and studies identifing different types.
Not that im adding any useful point to the discussion just thort id say that im sticking to my Grammostola Thankyou LOL.

Bentrix

[Ray Gabriel]

Hi Brendan,

I thought i had replied to this??

These alst pics you posted are what we ahd a few years back as the most common colour variety of A. urticans what did you get these as?

Ray

[Aviculariinae]

Hi Ray,
You did reply, it was elsewhere though . Will talk some more at the lectures with a few beers.

[Ray Gabriel]

Hi Brendan,

"Will talk some more at the lectures with a few beers"

Maybe we can have a chat to, once you have finished talking to the beers LOLOLO

Ray

[John]

Whats wrong with having a beard and a green anorak

[Ray Gabriel]

DOnt know, never had an anorak!

[John]

dont knock it till you try it